Opponents protest signing of ACTA without adequate debate

Almost two dozen European nations signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade …

Over the vocal protests of opponents, 22 European nations signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on Thursday. A statement by the Japanese foreign ministry, which hosted the signing ceremony, indicated that the remaining EU member states were expected to sign the agreement "on the completion of respective domestic procedures." The United States, Canada, Japan, and several other nations signed the agreement in October.

The move sparked protests in Europe. Thousands of Poles took to the streets in protest, and more than a dozen members of the Polish parliament donned Guy Fawkes masks to express their displeasure at the signing.

Kader Arif, a French member of the European Parliament from the Socialist Party, had been assigned to be a rapporteur on ACTA, meaning that he was asked to study the issue and deliver a report on the subject. But he resigned in protest on Thursday.

”I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement," he said, according to one translation. "No inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly.”

He denounced "never-before-seen maneuvers from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted. I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade."

The United States signed onto the agreement in October. Ordinarily, treaties need to be submitted to the US Senate for ratification, but the Obama administration has adopted the novel (and, some have argued, constitutionally dubious) approach of declaring ACTA an "executive agreement" that can be adopted unilaterally by the executive branch, as it ostensibly does not alter existing US law.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) raised concerns about the constitutionality of this tactic back in October. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) joined the chorus of criticism this week when he called ACTA "more dangerous than SOPA" at a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "It’s not coming to me for a vote," he said. "It purports that it does not change existing laws. But once implemented, it creates a whole new enforcement system and will virtually tie the hands of Congress to undo it."

The version of ACTA that ultimately got adopted is not nearly as bad is it could have been, though serious flaws remain. But regardless of the merits of the treaty itself, the non-transparent process by which ACTA has been pushed through the US and European political systems remains hard to defend.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

Title of this article is ambiguous. Did they protest without adequate debate (i.e., the agreement was fine, the protesters should have been less rash) or were they protesting that the debate surrounding the agreement did not include input from important parties?

Title of this article is ambiguous. Did they protest without adequate debate (i.e., the agreement was fine, the protesters should have been less rash) or were they protesting that the debate surrounding the agreement did not include input from important parties?

more than a dozen members of the Polish parliament donned Guy Fawkes masks to express their displeasure at the signing

There is no image macro for what I am feeling.

You know, the picture linked above plays on many levels. I'd almost have to say Poland's parliament kinda rocked that one out. Or does that mean Anonymous is now mainstream and therefore not Anon as it once was? Could parliament be involved in a plot to blow up parliament? Whichever way it shakes out, it's disturbing none the less.

"Ordinarily, treaties need to be submitted to the US Senate for ratification, but the Obama administration has adopted the novel (and, some have argued, constitutionally dubious) approach of declaring ACTA an "executive agreement" that can be adopted unilaterally by the executive branch, as it ostensibly does not alter existing US law."

It seems like every President thinks he can just change the name of something and can completely ignore government procedures and laws.

Looks like we're going to have to rely on the Supreme Court to decide this one. I'm 100% against secret treaties that have the potential to directly affect the fundamental rights of Americans and freedom loving people around the world. Generally speaking, I support our current President's policies and ideas that have yet to be agreed to in Congress. But I cannot agree with him at all on this one. Think about it: During the Cold War, the SALT Treaties, which involved the most classified nuclear secrets of the two super powers of the day, were debated, as per the Constitution, before ratification. The Cold War -- The brink of human annihilation -- not as classified as ACTA?

The EU is pretty much not accountable or democratic so this is unsurprising. All the key decisions are made in the council of ministers which is populated by APPOINTED officials not elected officials.

Now these are officials are appointed by the governments of the member states BUT as appointments to an institution few understand, how they get their position is pretty damn opaque. *cough lobby money*

It just saddens me to think that a bunch of Phil Specrtre likes are running the show where freedom of speech and innovation is concerned.

What are the chances of suing in the U.S. to argue it's constitutional issues? Seems like the house or senate could bring forth such a lawsuit based on how it was signed.

Uh...no.The house and the senate can't sue. The executive branch can bring suits, but none of the others can, thankfully.

Also, the House isn't involved in approving treaties.

Their component members of the Senate could bring a class action lawsuit, if they had any standing. They could argue that ACTA being passed with executive agreement does personal harm to them by eliminating their power as Senators, and furthermore prove financial harm in that they didn't get any lobbyist money for the vote on ACTA. These claims would probably be dismissed by the Supreme Court, as you don't want branches of government suing each other; it makes for very bad precedent.

It's likely a company that stands to be harmed by ACTA and that has deep pocket books will sue, and it's also likely the suit will make it to the Supreme Court a few years from now.

Whatever are they talking about? I'm sure it was debated plenty among all the relevant industry groups and bought-off politicians.

What ever the debate was it sure as hell wasn't about the issue, only about the amount paid to BUY the support and the VOTE. They were worth maybe $1.56 each but probably got paid tens of thousands in legalized bribes and other considerations.

SOPA and PIPA were just smokescreens to divert our attention from ACTA. The politicians won.

I very much doubt this viewpoint, which I've noticed is rampant. It only makes sense if you view all politicians everywhere as acting in unison.

Not all. But most politicians are outright bought. And why not, after all? He who pays the piper calls the tune.

That's true, but they aren't all bought or controlled by the same interests.

I guess I also doubt that the MPAA is intelligent enough to make smokescreens. I have no doubt they sincerely wanted SOPA to pass.

I'd like to think the MPAA are not that smart - but when it comes to money, I believe they're capable of just about anything. They possibly were shooting in the dark - back these different bills and hope one sticks!

What are the chances of suing in the U.S. to argue it's constitutional issues? Seems like the house or senate could bring forth such a lawsuit based on how it was signed.

Uh...no.The house and the senate can't sue. The executive branch can bring suits, but none of the others can, thankfully.

The Supreme Court has historically preferred to let the Legislative and Executive branches work out disputes about the balance of power. From what I've been able to learn so far, the Supreme Court has never found an Executive Agreement unconstitutional. However, if the potential for the violation of our fundamental rights exists, it should at least be reviewed in that light.

The President, who I otherwise enthusiastically support, said that ACTA does not alter existing law. Then, should Congress pass a law, presidential veto not withstanding, thereby making certain provisions of ACTA illegal, what would the status of ACTA be at that point? If ACTA is indeed "more dangerous than SOPA", then Congress has a responsibility to act to protect our rights.

Yesterday, U.S. embassy has called Polish parliament, how proceeded the voting for desiderata to Polish prime minister about ACTA. Desiderata requested prime minister to restrain from ACTA signature. Since desiderata was approved, US embassy demanded the information how it comes to voting, how MPs were voting, how many MPs were for, how many against, how many absent. Polish MPs became embarrassed, since the range of questions of US Ambassador went far beyond the partnership of sovereign countries.After:http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/ ... mowej.html

Title of this article is ambiguous. Did they protest without adequate debate (i.e., the agreement was fine, the protesters should have been less rash) or were they protesting that the debate surrounding the agreement did not include input from important parties?

Are you even familiar with what ACTA is? The rule is: there is _no_ debate, because the general public in all countries involved has no idea that ACTA exists, much less about its content.

Poland just became an exception, and the protests are both about ACTA itself and the way it was adopted.

Ordinarily, treaties need to be submitted to the US Senate for ratification, but the Obama administration has adopted the novel (and, some have argued, constitutionally dubious) approach of declaring ACTA an "executive agreement" that can be adopted unilaterally by the executive branch, as it ostensibly does not alter existing US law.

This to me is bone chilling. Not so much that he is essentially ignoring Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution (OK...that is pretty chilling as well), but that the Senate isn't freaking out that he is diminishing their power and authority. Why would they, by and large, keep quiet on this? I would be hopping mad no matter what my party affiliation is.

The EU is pretty much not accountable or democratic so this is unsurprising. All the key decisions are made in the council of ministers which is populated by APPOINTED officials not elected officials.

You couldn't be more wrong about this.

In the EU, ACTA still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament, and then by national parliaments of EU countries. In US, Obama will make it law with executive order. So in this case the EU is far more democratic than the US.